Can someone help explain AC C please? I understand that "investment decreases" is a necessary condition of weak economy. However, "prices constant" is also a necessary condition. Why doesn't that matter for AC C? In my head, the economy is weak only if prices are constant and unemployment rises/investment decreases.
I selected AC A because I interpreted that "last few years" could mean the last hundred years. (Maybe that was unreasonable, but I was applying LR-thinking where the word "some" has a lot of variation.) If that were the case, then I thought AC A addresses the recent rise in temperature that even the solar variation theory could not explain. In contrast, I thought that AC E was consistent with both the greenhouse theory and the solar variation theory. Gah!
I guess my takeaway is that "long-term match" also encompasses the "recent rise," not just general trends.
I found this question so tricky. The question stem is for sufficient assumption (which is why I initially picked AC A). But, to trigger the correct conditionals to arrive at the conclusion, we need to identify the necessary assumption.
Help! I understood most of AC D, but the part that threw me off was "fails to establish." I thought the argument did establish that something true of some people was true of only those people. It established that Hana's brothers are the only possible guests to gift the recording. But the AC says "fails to establish." Can someone explain what I'm misreading?
When reviewing questions in a drill, it's helpful that the analytics shows the question history. Would it be possible to also include a quick overview of which AC I selected during my previous attempt(s) without actually clicking on the previous attempt? It would be great to see if I'm consistently picking the same wrong AC, if I'm switching between wrong ACs, or if I had a lucky correct guess during the first attempt. Thanks!
Hi @Kevin_Lin, I'm not Tyler, but did make a similar mistake and was skimming through the discussion posts for other explanations.
I read "anything that lowers blood cholesterol levels also lower the risk of hardening of the arteries" as a correlative statement. Something that lowered cholesterol also happened to lower the risk of artery hardening. Am I tripping myself up about it? It seemed reasonable on the first read that this was a casual claim, but then I thought about correlation/causation....
Overall though, even if there was a (reasonable) correlation/causation jump occurring, the main hurdle/assumption is establishing whether the data in the study is correct, so I see why D is the correct AC.